Channel 9 News...

[Ice Wolf]

Anyone here Sly on 3AW this morning?

I don't mind listening to him occasionally and usually take his stories with a grain of salt. This morning he spoke about the case and said that all this stuff that has come out is fine but at no point did anyone did anyone say that the investigating officers did not complete the investigation to the best of their ability.

Yes there may have been pressure - and we don't know if that is from senior police officials or other bozos in the force making a call and saying, "come on let it go". Both of these is inappropriate.

If the pressure was reported then the likely response from the bosses would have been, "do your job".

Again, at no point has anyone said that the investigation was compromised. A complete brief was given to the DPP and the decision was made not to proceed.

Again the media is choosing its words and only telling part of the story to create headlines.

Exactly.

This guy was in charge of the investigation, is he saying he was compromised?? So some people 'lobbied', foolishly,vigorously, perhaps even illegally... but unless he himself concedes he relented to this pressure, the only other possible implication is that the DPP is corrupt.

Lol Cops calling the DPP corrupt isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

[poatina]

At last the point is emerging . The investigators claim they couldn't have prepared the brief better. Clearly they say that it was not compromised at all, whatever the pressure. But the DPP thought the case wasn't viable. Note that the DPP assesses it on the basis of a reasonable prospect of conviction - not as a prima facie case or the lesser test for a case to be committed for trial by a Magistrate - but on the test of whether a jury would convict. There was no point in arresting or charging anyone unless the DPP was going to indict . He said he would not . That is his call.
The sour grapes stupidy of the now - resigned investigating cop is shown by his bleat that there was a " good prima facie case " still on the file, but that " justice " didn't take its course. His idea of Justice was that Milne be charged , paraded around , maybe committed for trial and THEN discharged by the DPP , so the copper's ego could be satisfied about what a good job he had done, and he could say to the "victim" how terrible the DPP was . Pretty much as he's saying now , except he didn't get his joy in seeing Milne charged , if only to be discharged later once his life and career were ruined.
Appalling .

[GrumpyOne]

At last the point is emerging . The investigators claim they couldn't have prepared the brief better. Clearly they say that it was not compromised at all, whatever the pressure. But the DPP thought the case wasn't viable. Note that the DPP assesses it on the basis of a reasonable prospect of conviction - not as a prima facie case or the lesser test for a case to be committed for trial by a Magistrate - but on the test of whether a jury would convict. There was no point in arresting or charging anyone unless the DPP was going to indict . He said he would not . That is his call.
The sour grapes stupidy of the now - resigned investigating cop is shown by his bleat that there was a " good prima facie case " still on the file, but that " justice " didn't take its course. His idea of Justice was that Milne be charged , paraded around , maybe committed for trial and THEN discharged by the DPP , so the copper's ego could be satisfied about what a good job he had done, and he could say to the "victim" how terrible the DPP was . Pretty much as he's saying now , except he didn't get his joy in seeing Milne charged , if only to be discharged later once his life and career were ruined.
Appalling .

Spot on.

You should post more often.

[bob__71]

I know that you put quotes around victim. But I think we should use alleged victim.

I was shocked by the Herald Sun this morning. They use alleged when describing the crime but used the term Victim several times without qualifying it. It seemed a way of stating a "Fact" indirectly.

[SaintPav]

The case has a new twist. Now the Hun is saying that the case did not go ahead because of the cost factor and DPP's reluctance to proceed with the case and lay charges.

According to the second detective Smith: "We thought we'd done a great job," he said of the investigation. "We thought all the bases were covered.

"We couldn't do a better brief of evidence if we tried."

There you go then...He said it. The brief which was presented to the DPP was not compormised. The best evidence was put forward and the DPP thought that the case would not get up.

I reckon these coppers got too close to the victim, stuffed the brief up or have have had their egos damaged. Either way, it's a debacle and it has nothing to do with the St Kilda Football Club.

[Duggie]

Is there a hidden agenda somewhere in all this?
It lies doggo for six years and reemerges just as Milne is hitting top form and Saints are to line up for a major test.
My point is: have the whistle - blower cops any vested interests?

[Saints43]

Jason Richarson stated on SEN this morning that St Kilda had made a payment to the alleged victim.

Which front bar does he do his research in?

[3:16]

Jason Richarson stated on SEN this morning that St Kilda had made a payment to the alleged victim.

Which front bar does he do his research in?

Fist full of Dollars hey?????

As I've stated, there's a key player in this, who is working with 2 or 3 others, makes for a very interesting re-match in Rnd 16, doesn't it!!!!!

[Joey]

Jason Richarson stated on SEN this morning that St Kilda had made a payment to the alleged victim.

Which front bar does he do his research in?

While they were interviewing a solicitor, Richardson said that back 6 years ago the rumour was that a civil settlement was reached between the parties, that is totally seperate to the criminal investigation. And they did say that it was a only a rumour back then.

[Saints43]

Jason Richarson stated on SEN this morning that St Kilda had made a payment to the alleged victim.

Which front bar does he do his research in?

While they were interviewing a solicitor, Richardson said that back 6 years ago the rumour was that a civil settlement was reached between the parties, that is totally seperate to the criminal investigation. And they did say that it was a only a rumour back then.

No he didn't. He stated that there was a payment made - and then asked if that effects any potential criminal case.

[yipper]

Jason Richarson stated on SEN this morning that St Kilda had made a payment to the alleged victim.

Which front bar does he do his research in?

Fist full of Dollars hey?????

As I've stated, there's a key player in this, who is working with 2 or 3 others, makes for a very interesting re-match in Rnd 16, doesn't it!!!!!

Hey stonecold, Was I getting warm earlier with a certain ex-coach, who wasn't an ex-cop!! No longer on the xmas card list of the tiprat.

[3:16]

Jason Richarson stated on SEN this morning that St Kilda had made a payment to the alleged victim.

Which front bar does he do his research in?

Fist full of Dollars hey?????

As I've stated, there's a key player in this, who is working with 2 or 3 others, makes for a very interesting re-match in Rnd 16, doesn't it!!!!!

Hey stonecold, Was I getting warm earlier with a certain ex-coach, who wasn't an ex-cop!! No longer on the xmas card list of the tiprat.

All you feeling warm and fuzzy Zip, cause you should be!!!!!

[Joey]

Jason Richarson stated on SEN this morning that St Kilda had made a payment to the alleged victim.

Which front bar does he do his research in?

While they were interviewing a solicitor, Richardson said that back 6 years ago the rumour was that a civil settlement was reached between the parties, that is totally seperate to the criminal investigation. And they did say that it was a only a rumour back then.

No he didn't. He stated that there was a payment made - and then asked if that effects any potential criminal case.

I must have heard him wrong then, cause I heard him ask about the effects on the criminal case, but i didn't hear him state it as fact that a payment was made. If he did say that then he better be sure of his facts before making claims like that.

[saint75]

At last the point is emerging . The investigators claim they couldn't have prepared the brief better. Clearly they say that it was not compromised at all, whatever the pressure. But the DPP thought the case wasn't viable. Note that the DPP assesses it on the basis of a reasonable prospect of conviction - not as a prima facie case or the lesser test for a case to be committed for trial by a Magistrate - but on the test of whether a jury would convict. There was no point in arresting or charging anyone unless the DPP was going to indict . He said he would not . That is his call.
The sour grapes stupidy of the now - resigned investigating cop is shown by his bleat that there was a " good prima facie case " still on the file, but that " justice " didn't take its course. His idea of Justice was that Milne be charged , paraded around , maybe committed for trial and THEN discharged by the DPP , so the copper's ego could be satisfied about what a good job he had done, and he could say to the "victim" how terrible the DPP was . Pretty much as he's saying now , except he didn't get his joy in seeing Milne charged , if only to be discharged later once his life and career were ruined.
Appalling .

Spot on.

You should post more often.

100% agree. It should be noted that rape cases often boil down to one persons word against another. For a case to proceed, the evidence has to be IRON CLAD. The DPP and the police had no hesitation laying charges against Lovett and he is a St Kilda player. Why was this not thrown out and why was no pressure placed on the investigating officers in this case? BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE IS THERE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS!! Not to say he will be convicted, but they feel they have a good chance of obtaining a conviction.

Of course this boils down to money. Tax payers money will not be wasted on a case that is not able to get a conviction, whether it be to a lack of evidence or whether there is a consensus that the claims are false. Nor should it be tried.

I have been quite vocal in my disgust for Lovett and the 'alleged' violence he committed against his victim (which is still to be proven, granted). In this case, my sympathy lies with Milne, Montagna and their family and friends. All good and well the mother putting her two cents worth in too Ch9. Maybe Milne's wife or mother should make a phone call to them? Express their horror and disgust for the blatant garbage that has been published and screened by the media.

Back in 2004, I reserved my judgement on this issue until the facts came to the surface. The same stance I took on Lovett when I first heard the news about him after Christmas. Being a St Kilda supporter, my first instinct is loyalty so until evidence comes forward to substantiate the claims, they have my support. As a human being, if evidence comes to light that support the claims, I want them banished and punished. If I thought for one minute that Milne or Montagna were guilty, I would wish them to be banished from our club and have the full force of the law thrown at them.

Maybe this coming out now is a good thing for them in some ways. It never seemed to be resolved in 2004 even though the charges were dropped. Maybe now Milne and Montagna will be able to close this chapter once the hysteria has died down and the issue is dealt with.

A note to any young girls reading this, if you are going to jump into bed naked with men in the dark, you had better leave the light on next time so you can see which one you are sleeping with. No point claiming rape after the fact. It is best you don't point yourself in this situation in the first place.

[meher baba]

Jason Richarson stated on SEN this morning that St Kilda had made a payment to the alleged victim.

Which front bar does he do his research in?

Fist full of Dollars hey?????

As I've stated, there's a key player in this, who is working with 2 or 3 others, makes for a very interesting re-match in Rnd 16, doesn't it!!!!!

Hey stonecold, Was I getting warm earlier with a certain ex-coach, who wasn't an ex-cop!! No longer on the xmas card list of the tiprat.

All you feeling warm and fuzzy Zip, cause you should be!!!!!

What conceivable motive could this individual have for getting involved in this? I would have thought that the re-emergence of the story would bri g his own conduct in 2004 under unwelcome scrutiny (or am I thinking of the wrong ex-coach?)

[SaintPav]

Jason Richarson stated on SEN this morning that St Kilda had made a payment to the alleged victim.

Which front bar does he do his research in?

Fist full of Dollars hey?????

As I've stated, there's a key player in this, who is working with 2 or 3 others, makes for a very interesting re-match in Rnd 16, doesn't it!!!!!

Hey stonecold, Was I getting warm earlier with a certain ex-coach, who wasn't an ex-cop!! No longer on the xmas card list of the tiprat.

All you feeling warm and fuzzy Zip, cause you should be!!!!!

Do you guys mean an ex cop??? I need more hints please....

[dcstkfc]

At last the point is emerging . The investigators claim they couldn't have prepared the brief better. Clearly they say that it was not compromised at all, whatever the pressure. But the DPP thought the case wasn't viable. Note that the DPP assesses it on the basis of a reasonable prospect of conviction - not as a prima facie case or the lesser test for a case to be committed for trial by a Magistrate - but on the test of whether a jury would convict. There was no point in arresting or charging anyone unless the DPP was going to indict . He said he would not . That is his call.
The sour grapes stupidy of the now - resigned investigating cop is shown by his bleat that there was a " good prima facie case " still on the file, but that " justice " didn't take its course. His idea of Justice was that Milne be charged , paraded around , maybe committed for trial and THEN discharged by the DPP , so the copper's ego could be satisfied about what a good job he had done, and he could say to the "victim" how terrible the DPP was . Pretty much as he's saying now , except he didn't get his joy in seeing Milne charged , if only to be discharged later once his life and career were ruined.
Appalling .

Spot on.

You should post more often.

Great post and high praise.

[SaintPav]

At last the point is emerging . The investigators claim they couldn't have prepared the brief better. Clearly they say that it was not compromised at all, whatever the pressure. But the DPP thought the case wasn't viable. Note that the DPP assesses it on the basis of a reasonable prospect of conviction - not as a prima facie case or the lesser test for a case to be committed for trial by a Magistrate - but on the test of whether a jury would convict. There was no point in arresting or charging anyone unless the DPP was going to indict . He said he would not . That is his call.
The sour grapes stupidy of the now - resigned investigating cop is shown by his bleat that there was a " good prima facie case " still on the file, but that " justice " didn't take its course. His idea of Justice was that Milne be charged , paraded around , maybe committed for trial and THEN discharged by the DPP , so the copper's ego could be satisfied about what a good job he had done, and he could say to the "victim" how terrible the DPP was . Pretty much as he's saying now , except he didn't get his joy in seeing Milne charged , if only to be discharged later once his life and career were ruined.
Appalling .

Spot on.

You should post more often.

100% agree. It should be noted that rape cases often boil down to one persons word against another. For a case to proceed, the evidence has to be IRON CLAD. The DPP and the police had no hesitation laying charges against Lovett and he is a St Kilda player. Why was this not thrown out and why was no pressure placed on the investigating officers in this case? BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE IS THERE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS!! Not to say he will be convicted, but they feel they have a good chance of obtaining a conviction.

Of course this boils down to money. Tax payers money will not be wasted on a case that is not able to get a conviction, whether it be to a lack of evidence or whether there is a consensus that the claims are false. Nor should it be tried.

I have been quite vocal in my disgust for Lovett and the 'alleged' violence he committed against his victim (which is still to be proven, granted). In this case, my sympathy lies with Milne, Montagna and their family and friends. All good and well the mother putting her two cents worth in too Ch9. Maybe Milne's wife or mother should make a phone call to them? Express their horror and disgust for the blatant garbage that has been published and screened by the media.

Back in 2004, I reserved my judgement on this issue until the facts came to the surface. The same stance I took on Lovett when I first heard the news about him after Christmas. Being a St Kilda supporter, my first instinct is loyalty so until evidence comes forward to substantiate the claims, they have my support. As a human being, if evidence comes to light that support the claims, I want them banished and punished. If I thought for one minute that Milne or Montagna were guilty, I would wish them to be banished from our club and have the full force of the law thrown at them.

Maybe this coming out now is a good thing for them in some ways. It never seemed to be resolved in 2004 even though the charges were dropped. Maybe now Milne and Montagna will be able to close this chapter once the hysteria has died down and the issue is dealt with.

A note to any young girls reading this, if you are going to jump into bed naked with men in the dark, you had better leave the light on next time so you can see which one you are sleeping with. No point claiming rape after the fact. It is best you don't point yourself in this situation in the first place.

With all due respect dude, I don't think your text really helps; especially the last bit..

[saintly]

Jason Richarson stated on SEN this morning that St Kilda had made a payment to the alleged victim.

Which front bar does he do his research in?

Actually from my memory it was not stkilda that paid off the alledged victom but milne did. i believe it was in papers about 3-4 years ago.

[Thinline]

Pretty sure the implication was there is a need for people to take responsibility for their actions sometimes. I kinda get that. But yes, crudely worded.

Funny how these stories do a cycle.

The Age online has all but dropped it now.

I suspect the fact that the second cop essentially blamed the DPP for making a decision the cops didn't like sorta acts like a massive dead end.

Police questioning the virtues of the DPP?

Now I've heard everything!

[matrix]

sexual assault wasnt it?
big diff

payout
pffft, heard that years ago from someone over here, so if little old adelaide peeps hear it....well??


thirdly
eddie:
there is no such thing as coincidence............

[yipper]

Jason Richarson stated on SEN this morning that St Kilda had made a payment to the alleged victim.

Which front bar does he do his research in?

Fist full of Dollars hey?????

As I've stated, there's a key player in this, who is working with 2 or 3 others, makes for a very interesting re-match in Rnd 16, doesn't it!!!!!

Hey stonecold, Was I getting warm earlier with a certain ex-coach, who wasn't an ex-cop!! No longer on the xmas card list of the tiprat.

All you feeling warm and fuzzy Zip, cause you should be!!!!!

What conceivable motive could this individual have for getting involved in this? I would have thought that the re-emergence of the story would bri g his own conduct in 2004 under unwelcome scrutiny (or am I thinking of the wrong ex-coach?)

No. You got the right ex-coach. Maybe his coaching was starting to get severely criticised by some sections given the way the tiprat has been killing them this year!!!

[SaintPav]

A mate of mine wrote this on the Hun website. It was well written, thoughtful and articulate; oh and of course it did not end up being put up.

"I am disgusted at both this paper and Channel 9 for airing material that has not been questioned and is legalistically dubious. In the process, various individuals including the alleged victim are forced to re-visit a painful moment in the past. Why did these two police officers decide to tell their story now? If there was interference in the investigation was that reflected in the investigative brief that landed in the office of the OPP? Why is this paper cynically using the name of a football club to promote and stir a story that is about police process and possible flaws? Today’s headline was the last straw - Costs influencing the decision to run a pre-trial? That is an insult to both our judicial system and the integrity of the Office of the OPP. There is nothing wrong with informing the public about strident issues and holding our institutions accountable for indiscretions and incompetence, but do not insult our intelligence by ignoring key issues and pushing a sensationalistic and tacky thread under the guise of ‘seeking justice’".

[yipper]

A mate of mine wrote this on the Hun website. It was well written, thoughtful and articulate; oh and of course it did not end up being put up.

"I am disgusted at both this paper and Channel 9 for airing material that has not been questioned and is legalistically dubious. In the process, various individuals including the alleged victim are forced to re-visit a painful moment in the past. Why did these two police officers decide to tell their story now? If there was interference in the investigation was that reflected in the investigative brief that landed in the office of the OPP? Why is this paper cynically using the name of a football club to promote and stir a story that is about police process and possible flaws? Today’s headline was the last straw - Costs influencing the decision to run a pre-trial? That is an insult to both our judicial system and the integrity of the Office of the OPP. There is nothing wrong with informing the public about strident issues and holding our institutions accountable for indiscretions and incompetence, but do not insult our intelligence by ignoring key issues and pushing a sensationalistic and tacky thread under the guise of ‘seeking justice’".

Not surprised it did not get printed!! Why would they draw attention to their own shift into tabloid tacky journalism.

[degruch]

Not surprised it did not get printed!!

I know...legalistically?